The overlooked importance of designated bomber types in air to air

[michael rauls]

This is something I have seen referenced only rarely in books and internet articles. As a matter a fact outside of this forum I have only seen two references to it in my entire life, one anecdotal and one statistical. The anecdote was an interview with Franz Stigler in which he stated he shot down eleven four engine bombers and was shot down or had his plane shot up badly eleven times by four engine bombers.
The statistical reference was a positive kill/loss ratio claimed for the SBD in Barrett Tillmans book The Dauntless.
Both of these things would seem to point to designated bomber types as substantial factor in air to air atrition but outside these two references I have never read anything in the media about it so I'm not really sure.
Would love to hear facts, statistics, and peoples thoughts on this.

 

[Reegor]

I don't understand this question, particularly the word "designated." But if you are asking about fighters being shot down by bombers, this was thoroughly analyzed by Curtis LeMay's staff for B-29s attacking Japan. IIRC correctly, on average several fighters were shot down, for every B-29 they downed. Anecdotal support for this was the Japanese policy in the last few months of the war of ramming the B-29s. I can't find my main sources but here are a two quotes from one easily available source:

The cost, calculated at 1.38 per cent of all B-29 combat sorties, was light by accepted standards for strategic bombardment. Relatively high at first, losses tapered off sharply as Japan's defenses were overwhelmed and as the command turned more frequently to night operations against which the Japanese never developed effective tactics. Measured by ETO standards, the losses inflicted by B-29 crews on intercepting enemy planes were also light, amounting in figures finally approved to 714 destroyed, 456 probables, and 770 damaged. The modesty of these claims undoubtedly reflects a more skilful screening than had been practiced in the early days in Europe, but the figures are also indicative of the feebleness of the Japanese air forces, who never staged any great air battles in defense of the homeland. A total of 11,026 attacks by Japanese fighters was reported, only about one for every three B-29 If the relatively high returns from a moderate effort at low cost owed much to the vulnerability of Japanese cities weakly guarded by air. [p 751]

page 574, covering the early months:
These difficulties were reflected in the statistics of losses incurred through February: twenty-nine B-29's were lost to enemy fighters, one to flak, nine to a combination of fighters and flak, twenty-one to operational difficulties, and fifteen to unknown​

Source:
THE ARMY AIR FORCES In World War II, Volume Five, The Pacific: Matterhorn to Nagasaki, June 1944 to August 1945.
available online.

 

[GrauGeist]

To be honest, comparing the SBD to a heavy (or medium) bomber is not going to give you satisfactory results.
Of all of the dive-bombers that saw action in WWII, the SBD was the only one that was capable of standing it's ground like a fighter. It accounted for 138 victories in the PTO with a remarkable kill-to-loss ratio...BUT, it's attributes were nothing like a medium or heavy bomber.
Keep in mind that the Dauntless was designed as a "Scouting Bomber", it was a single engined aircraft with a two-man crew. It was not invincible, as the entire flight from the Enterprise arriving at Pearl Harbor on the morning of 7 December was shot down by IJN elements.

Heavy bombers, on the otherhand, had considerable defensive fire that made them a difficult target. British and American bombers were the best protected - the Germans referred to the Sunderland as the "Flying Porcupine" for a reason. Axis bombers seemed to be seriously lacking in this respect.

 

[michael rauls]

Thanks guys. That's the kind of stuff I thought would make for an interesting thread as the effectiveness of fighters in ww2 air to air combat gets lots of attention but bombers in air to air combat, be they dive, medium, or heavy seem to get almost no attention at all.

 

[michael rauls]

I don't understand this question, particularly the word "designated." But if you are asking about fighters being shot down by bombers, this was thoroughly analyzed by Curtis LeMay's staff for B-29s attacking Japan. IIRC correctly, on average several fighters were shot down, for every B-29 they downed. Anecdotal support for this was the Japanese policy in the last few months of the war of ramming the B-29s. I can't find my main sources but here are a two quotes from one easily available source:

The cost, calculated at 1.38 per cent of all B-29 combat sorties, was light by accepted standards for strategic bombardment. Relatively high at first, losses tapered off sharply as Japan's defenses were overwhelmed and as the command turned more frequently to night operations against which the Japanese never developed effective tactics. Measured by ETO standards, the losses inflicted by B-29 crews on intercepting enemy planes were also light, amounting in figures finally approved to 714 destroyed, 456 probables, and 770 damaged. The modesty of these claims undoubtedly reflects a more skilful screening than had been practiced in the early days in Europe, but the figures are also indicative of the feebleness of the Japanese air forces, who never staged any great air battles in defense of the homeland. A total of 11,026 attacks by Japanese fighters was reported, only about one for every three B-29 If the relatively high returns from a moderate effort at low cost owed much to the vulnerability of Japanese cities weakly guarded by air. [p 751]

page 574, covering the early months:
These difficulties were reflected in the statistics of losses incurred through February: twenty-nine B-29's were lost to enemy fighters, one to flak, nine to a combination of fighters and flak, twenty-one to operational difficulties, and fifteen to unknown​

Source:
THE ARMY AIR FORCES In World War II, Volume Five, The Pacific: Matterhorn to Nagasaki, June 1944 to August 1945.
available online.

Verry interesting info, thanks. By designated bomber types I meant planes that had been designed as bombers and not those that were sometimes pressed into that role like p40s or p47s for example.

 

[GregP]

The biggest problem is lack of information. After the USA started using box formations, any fighter flying through the formations was probably under the guns of 3 - 6 bombers at the same time. So naturally, when a fighter was shot down, everyone who was shooting at it claimed it. There was never enough evidence to positively award a kill to any single gunner. As a result, most bomb groups didn't really have any way to account for gunner kills in any systematic manner.

Are bomber gunner kill claims inflated? Yes! Is there a way to sort them out? No!

You can apportion them, but there is no way to know whose bullet caused the fighter to finally succumb.

The issue is almost the same, but not quite, with air-to-air kills. It is easy to keep track of a kill if you are one on one. It is relatively easy if you are 4 on 4 or 4 on 8. But if you have 16 fighters engaging another 8 to 24, then any kill cold have come from almost anywhere without gun cameras. And gun cameras are not infallible, either. They can't really show you when a bullet came from somewhere else because all the debris blows backwards along the line of flight of the victim.

I won't say there weren't some glory-seekers, there were ... but most claims were in good faith, with the claimant thinking he was the victor.

Then there is the entire useless argument of what a "kill" means. To me, if you were on escort and shot a plane out of combat, you had a kill. If you got the engine and he landed and the airframe was recovered, you still deserve a kill because your task was to shoot fighters away from the bombers and thus get them to the target ... and you DID that. I do NOT subscribe to the notion of the aircraft had to be destroyed completely for a kill to be awarded. If you do that, then the fighter will NOT stay with the bombers, but will pursue and ensure their kill ... which is contrary to what is needed.

What about the rare but existing case where the enemy pilot was killed and the aircraft landed softly and was recovered. You actually DID have a "kill," but the plane was not badly damaged. Lieutenant Floyd Nugent ejected from an F7U Cutlass on July 26, 1954, only to watch the Cutlass, loaded with 2.75-inch rockets, fly serenely on, orbiting San Diego's North Island and the Hotel Del Coronado for almost 30 minutes before ditching near the shore. His Cutlass was recovered with relatively minor damage.

There is no single statement of a kill rule I have heard that seems to apply to all situations for an awarded victory.

Therefore, I personally use the victory awards that were awarded in the conflict at the time because, in most cases outside of the U.S.A., that's all we have. The only post-war aerial victory re-evaluation I have ever heard of was the U.S.A in WWII. So, for all other nations, we have only wartime claims and awards. To be fair, and to have an apples-to-apples comparison, we should use wartime claims and awards for the U.S.A., too.

Just my 2-cents worth. The people who are revisionists do not agree at all, and don't have to, but they also cannot seem to come up with a way to produce a good victory list for all services in all countries.

 

[michael rauls]

The biggest problem is lack of information. After the USA started using box formations, any fighter flying through the formations was probably under the guns of 3 - 6 bombers at the same time. So naturally, when a fighter was shot down, everyone who was shooting at it claimed it. There was never enough evidence to positively award a kill to any single gunner. As a result, most bomb groups didn't really have any way to account for gunner kills in any systematic manner.

Are bomber gunner kill claims inflated? Yes! Is there a way to sort them out? No!

You can apportion them, but there is no way to know whose bullet caused the fighter to finally succumb.

The issue is almost the same, but not quite, with air-to-air kills. It is easy to keep track of a kill if you are one on one. It is relatively easy if you are 4 on 4 or 4 on 8. But if you have 16 fighter engaging another 8 to 24, then any kill cold have come from almost anywhere without gun cameras. And gun cameras are not infallible, either. They can't really show you when a bullet came from somewhere else because all the debris blows backwards along the line of flight of the victim.

I won't say there weren't some glory-seekers, there were ... but most claims were in good faith, with the claimant thinking he was the victor.

Then there is the entire useless argument of what a "kill" means. To me, if you were on escort and shot a plane out of combat, you had a kill. If you got the engine and he landed and the airframe was recovered, you still deserve a kill because your task was to shoot fighters away from the bombers and thus get them to the target ... and you DID that. I do NOT subscribe to the notion of the aircraft had to be destroyed completely for a kill to be awarded. If you do that, then the fighter will NOT stay with the bombers, but will pursue and ensure their kill ... which is contrary to what is needed.

What about the rare but existing case where the enemy pilot was killed and the aircraft landed softly and was recovered. You actually DID have a "kill," but the plane was not badly damaged. Lieutenant Floyd Nugent ejected from an F7U Cutlass on July 26, 1954, only to watch the Cutlass, loaded with 2.75-inch rockets, fly serenely on, orbiting San Diego's North Island and the Hotel Del Coronado for almost 30 minutes before ditching near the shore. His Cutlass was recovered with relatively minor damage.

There is no single statement of a kill rule I have heard that seems to apply to all situations for an awarded victory.

Therefore, I personally use the victory awards that were awarded in the conflict at the time because, in most cases outside of the U.S.A., that's all we have. The only post-war aerial victory re-evaluation I have ever heard of was the U.S.A in WWII. So, for all other nations, we have only wartime claims and awards. To be fair, and to have an apples-to-apples comparison, we should use wartime claims and awards for the U.S.A., too.

Just my 2-cents worth. The people who are revisionists do not agree at all, and don't have to, but they also cannot seem to come up with a way to produce a good victory list for all services in all countries.

Great points and fascinating post. Something occurred to me while reading it. Perhaps somewhat of a handle could be gotten on this by looking at Luftwaffe and Japanese loss records from bombing missions where there was little or no escort and then extrapolating. It wouldn't be exhaustive but would give some kind of idea.
Hmmm............. I think I just thought of a good project to kick off my retirement. Unfortunately thats still about 12 years away.

 

[fastmongrel]

The only post-war aerial victory re-evaluation I have ever heard of was the U.S.A in WWII. So, for all other nations, we have only wartime claims and awards.

The RAF did a similar evaluation in the mid 1950s. I cant remember where I saw the figures but iirc just over 1 in 3 WWII claims was thought to be invalid. It was noticeable that the early years were the most over inflated and by 1942 onwards the RAF was pretty acurate.

 

[fastmongrel]

Great points and fascinating post. Something occurred to me while reading it. Perhaps somewhat of a handle could be gotten on this by looking at Luftwaffe and Japanese loss records from bombing missions where there was little or no escort and then extrapolating. It wouldn't be exhaustive but would give some kind of idea.
Hmmm............. I think I just thought of a good project to kick off my retirement. Unfortunately thats still about 12 years away.

People have already tried but for Japan, Soviet Union and Germany records are incomplete, not available or outright Government propaganda. Even if you have access to a time machine you still wont get a clear answer.

 

[GregP]

I have been searching for 25+ years for WWII aerial victories, and so far, I have only the WWII awards for claims lists from most, and Report 85 from the USAAF atfer WWII. I have never seen a definitive US Navy study others than the WWII naval Aviation Summary we all know. I have not found the British report of claims revisited, but I am also not really familiar with the British records that are online. I HAVE found a summary of WWII from the point of view of Soviet pilots, but nothing formal.

I have Bill Marshall's victory list from the 8th Air Force and look forward to his forthcoming list for the Med, too.

It would be very nice to find a combined list of WWII victories that have been "vetted," but I doubt it will ever come to pass.

Attached below is a World Ace List I made up some years back from the various sources I could find. It is incomplete, but might be a start for someone in here who hasn't found another start at it.

This stuff should NOT be a secret and should NOT be so hard to find. Cheers.

 

[Schweik]

The only post-war aerial victory re-evaluation I have ever heard of was the U.S.A in WWII. So, for all other nations, we have only wartime claims and awards. To be fair, and to have an apples-to-apples comparison, we should use wartime claims and awards for the U.S.A., too.

Just my 2-cents worth. The people who are revisionists do not agree at all, and don't have to, but they also cannot seem to come up with a way to produce a good victory list for all services in all countries.

Good post but this last part isn't correct - they have been doing a lot of analysis of both Axis and Allied victory claims compared to losses in many Theaters in recent years. One example in popular literature is Christopher Shores Mediterranean Air War series. He can't confirm or invalidate every claim but by looking at the actual number of losses you can get a much better idea in general of what was really happening, and on some days you can definitely tell outright.

That said, there are still the issues like you mentioned - what constitutes a victory or a kill? If an aircraft is hit with one bullet in the radiator and force-lands, is that a victory? I would say yes because they were forced out of the fight by damage even if it's back in the air the next day. But what if they just had engine trouble not caused by a hit? Then probably no, even if it was due to pushing the engine in a dogfight. What if they crash and blow up as a result of blacking out, running out of fuel, simple pilot error, or a broken aileron cable during strenuous maneuvers in combat? Again.. hard to say. For me generally no.

From looking at Shores statistics, it seems to help a lot to fight over your own base. If you are hit over your own base even with heavy damage you can often glide in and have a crash landing instead of having to bail out or dying in a blown up or flaming wreck. That changes the ratio of crash landed to shot-down planes quite a bit. Even planes that crash landed far from base were still sometimes recovered and put back into action, while conversely sometimes planes with light damage were not repaired in time and ended up being destroyed or captured by the enemy.

When trying to evaluate the actual victory ratios and victory tallies, you have to acknowledge that there will inevitably be subjective elements to the analysis. The important thing is that whatever criteria you come up with are applied equally to both or all sides under evaluation.

I do think it's worth noting and looking into because it will certainly change your perception of many air battles and how certain Air Forces and certain types of aircraft measured up to one another.

S

 

[Schweik]

The RAF did a similar evaluation in the mid 1950s. I cant remember where I saw the figures but iirc just over 1 in 3 WWII claims was thought to be invalid. It was noticeable that the early years were the most over inflated and by 1942 onwards the RAF was pretty acurate.

I think the typical ratio in most Theaters (if you can say there was such a thing) was about 3 -1, as in 3 empty claims for every 1 actual "confirmed" victory claim, on all sides. The ratio for "probables" is much lower - probably more like 1 out of 20 or 5% of them were actually victories. It did vary by side and by Theater, and also by time period. Over time some forces got better due to using gun cameras and other stricter verification requirements (the Russians eventually required the recovery of the identity plate from the shot down plane!) while other units got less accurate as delusional claims mounted.

What the true ratio is of course, as I mentioned, varied quite a bit depending on if you count crash landed aircraft as shot down for example, and also how you handle things like shared victories.

Most Aces incidentally seem to have shot down far less than they claimed, but there are some exceptions. Based on detailed postwar research, the Canadian Ace James "Stocky" Edwards seems to have shot down at least 3 more than he claimed as "confirmed" victories for example.

S

 

[Schweik]

As far as "designated" bombers (as distinct from Fighter-Bombers) that shot down enemy aircraft, I think it's a good subject for discussion as it is indeed a somewhat overlooked topic. Bombers shot down thousands of enemy aircraft, mostly with defensive fire, but also in 'predatory' chase mode like a fighter. The former is so common as to defy analysis almost, suffice to say that heavily armed multi-engined bombers did the best and a lot of damage was done. The latter was not as unique as you might think.

• I know Ju-87 Stukas did sometimes pursue and shoot down enemy aircraft, Hans Ulrich Rudel had a few kills I believe.
  
• Ju-88's did also including once infamously against a flight of P-38's coming into the Med Theater for the first time, and many times against lesser recon and bomber aircraft.
• I believe* D3A "Val's" shot down some enemy planes in the early days of the war, though not as many as the SBD did.
• The American made but mostly foreign-used Martin -167 bomber was occasionally successful as a fighter, in fact there was a unique guy who became an Ace in the type mostly while flying from Malta.
• The odd Westland Lysanders were used as fighters in the early months of the Desert War (though these I guess are more recon aircraft)
  
• The aforementioned Short Sunderland shot down various enemy aircraft both defensively and in 'predator' mode.
• I think* A-20s sometimes scored air to air victories I believe. Not certain about B-25's?
  
• The Soviet Pe-2 was successfully used to shoot down enemy aircraft (referring to the bomber variant not night fighters).
• The heavier, slower and more ungainly IL-2 Sturmovik shot down numerous enemy aircraft and I think there were a few aces.
  
• Lockheed Hudson's and Ventura's sometimes scored air to air victories usually far out to sea.
• Similarly, B-24 and their Navy equivalent sometimes shot down enemy aircraft in encounters far out to sea.
  
• Beaufighters flying as bombers scored numerous air-to-air victories but that is a bit more into the fighter-bomber category. Mosquito I guess would be in the same category.

One rich subcategory for this kind of thing is the maritime and convoy context. Float planes, ASW aircraft and long range maritime patrol bombers got into it far out to sea. There were all sorts of interesting match-ups beyond the range of typical land based or carrier borne fighters.

Allied aircraft like B-24s, Short Sunderlands, Hudsons, Fairey Fulmars, OS2U's, Hudsons, Martin 167s and Beaufighters would scrap with Fw 200's, Ju 88's, He 115's & Ar 196's float planes, various Italian bombers and float planes such as the famous SM 79, Cant 1007s, Cant 506's and German Do 24's flying boats, and the giant Blohm and Voss Bv 222 flying boat.

Similarly in the Pacific B-24s and B-17s, SBD's, PBY's and OS2U's and so on sometimes tangled with big, heavily armed Japanese H6K, H8K flying boat / bombers, and various other types of long range scouts like Ki-46's, Aichi E13 float planes and so forth. If they were particularly unlucky Allied pilots might encounter deadly A6M2-N or N1K1 float-plane fighters. On the other hand they might be supported or rescued by Beaufighters or P-38's.

Here is an interesting anecdote about a B-24 which became engaged with a pair of FW 200 maritime patrol bombers that were attacking a British convoy

The War's Oddest Dogfight | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine

Edit: The article mentions re the B-24 that two squadrons from the 480th bombing wing "From March through October 1943, they shot down nine German aircraft, including five Condors, three Dornier flying boats, and one Junkers Ju 88" for the loss of three B-24s from the two squadrons.



* not certain about those two, I looked them up and didn't find evidence and can't remember where I read it. I think I'm right though

S

 

[michael rauls]

As far as "designated" bombers (as distinct from Fighter-Bombers) that shot down enemy aircraft, I think it's a good subject for discussion as it is indeed a somewhat overlooked topic. Bombers shot down thousands of enemy aircraft, mostly with defensive fire, but also in 'predatory' chase mode like a fighter. The former is so common as to defy analysis almost, suffice to say that heavily armed multi-engined bombers did the best and a lot of damage was done. The latter was not as unique as you might think.

• I know Ju-87 Stukas did sometimes pursue and shoot down enemy aircraft, Hans Ulrich Rudel had a few kills I believe.
  
• Ju-88's did also including once infamously against a flight of P-38's coming into the Med Theater for the first time, and many times against lesser recon and bomber aircraft.
• I believe* D3A "Val's" shot down some enemy planes in the early days of the war, though not as many as the SBD did.
• The American made but mostly foreign-used Martin -167 bomber was occasionally successful as a fighter, in fact there was a unique guy who became an Ace in the type mostly while flying from Malta.
• The odd Westland Lysanders were used as fighters in the early months of the Desert War (though these I guess are more recon aircraft)
  
• The aforementioned Short Sunderland shot down various enemy aircraft both defensively and in 'predator' mode.
• I think* A-20s sometimes scored air to air victories I believe. Not certain about B-25's?
  
• The Soviet Pe-2 was successfully used to shoot down enemy aircraft (referring to the bomber variant not night fighters).
• The heavier, slower and more ungainly IL-2 Sturmovik shot down numerous enemy aircraft and I think there were a few aces.
  
• Lockheed Hudson's and Ventura's sometimes scored air to air victories usually far out to sea.
• Similarly, B-24 and their Navy equivalent sometimes shot down enemy aircraft in encounters far out to sea.
  
• Beaufighters flying as bombers scored numerous air-to-air victories but that is a bit more into the fighter-bomber category. Mosquito I guess would be in the same category.

One rich subcategory for this kind of thing is the maritime and convoy context. Float planes, ASW aircraft and long range maritime patrol bombers got into it far out to sea. There were all sorts of interesting match-ups far out to sea, beyond the range of typical land based or carrier borne fighters, between Allied aircraft like B-24s, Short Sunderlands, Bristol Blenheims, Martin 167s and Beaufighters vs. Fw 200's, He 115's, Ar 196's, various Italian bombers and float planes such as the famous SM 79, Cant 1007s, Cant 506's and German Do 24's and the giant Blohm and Voss Bv 222. Similarly in the Pacific B-24s and B-17s, PBY's and OSU-2's and so on sometimes tangled with big, heavily armed Japanese H6K, H8K flying boat / bombers, and various other types of long range scouts, Aichi E13 and so forth. If they were particularly unlucky Allied pilots might encounter deadly A6M2-N or N1K1 float-plane fighters. On the other hand they might be supported or rescued by Beaufighters or P-38's.

Here is an interesting anecdote about a B-24 which became engaged with a pair of FW 200 maritime patrol bombers that were attacking a British convoy

The War's Oddest Dogfight | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine

Edit: The article mentions re the B-24 that two squadrons from the 480th bombing wing "From March through October 1943, they shot down nine German aircraft, including five Condors, three Dornier flying boats, and one Junkers Ju 88" for the loss of three B-24s from the two squadrons.



* not certain about those two, I looked them up and didn't find evidence and can't remember where I read it. I think I'm right though

S

Great post. Lots of fascinating stuff in there. As to the B 25s in air to air combat other than defensive fire im sure I've read several times( cant remember where right now) about about a incident in which B 25s over the medaterainian flew alongside a flight of ju52s and shot down quite a few of them broadside. I believe it was a few weeks before the Palm Sunday massacre.

 

[GregP]

I don't subscribe to the 3 to 1 ratio at all. There were dogfights in the ETO with literally hundresed of planes. In the pacific, it was usually 4 vs.4, 4 vs. 8, or somethinh almost equally small in total numbers., mostly because they wqere over water largely and were this battles mostly between naval fighters, and tehre rreally areen't that many fightrers on a carrier.

Yes, we had overclaioming at first, as our rookie pilots got deasoned. But after that, I feel tyhe Pacific fighters werre MUCH more accurate than anything that ever happened during excprt duty over Europe. Also, in the Pacific, if you DID manage to get the golden single shot into a radiator, the plane might go down intact, but it was a total loss on thje bottom of the ocean.

I do NOT belive there is a general rule, except maybe for one theater of action at a time. But, opinions vary, like your gas mileage.

Cheers.

 

[Schweik]

I don't subscribe to the 3 to 1 ratio at all. There were dogfights in the ETO with literally hundresed of planes. In the pacific, it was usually 4 vs.4, 4 vs. 8, or somethinh almost equally small in total numbers., mostly because they wqere over water largely and were this battles mostly between naval fighters, and tehre rreally areen't that many fightrers on a carrier.

Yes, we had overclaioming at first, as our rookie pilots got deasoned. But after that, I feel tyhe Pacific fighters werre MUCH more accurate than anything that ever happened during excprt duty over Europe. Also, in the Pacific, if you DID manage to get the golden single shot into a radiator, the plane might go down intact, but it was a total loss on thje bottom of the ocean.

I do NOT belive there is a general rule, except maybe for one theater of action at a time. But, opinions vary, like your gas mileage.

Cheers.

Well, I can only base that on what I have seen in terms of claims vs. actual losses, which so far has been a lot from the Med from 1941 through March of 1943, some Russian front (a little bit more limited on detail) from 1941-1943, some CBI from 1942-1944 and some Pacific for 1942 and 1943.

I can say that in those Theaters very roughly speaking, 3-1 is a pretty typical average where they have been able to examine the actual loss records from both sides.

So in other words, it's not just a matter of guessing based on whether a ship disappeared into the sea, I'm saying that as a theoretical example if the Americans claimed 6 shot down and the Japanese claimed 6, but they only lost 2 each, then it's a 3-1 ratio for both sides.

I'm just saying it isn't (always) simply a matter of pure speculation any more. Records do exist and some have been sorted through and published.

S

 

[Schweik]

I should also add, I don't think it's necessarily anything dubious about pilots thinking they shot down more than they did. Multiple aircraft shoot at the same plane and don't even realize it- sometimes simultaneously sometimes at separate times. Planes are seen smoking and diving down and are presumed K/O but then they recover or weren't even damaged to begin with (many aircraft emitted smoke when accelerating at WEP or during other circumstances), and so on.

Bottom line is it's very hard to know what is going on in a War.

S

 

[special ed]

While not exactly in keeping with the original idea of the thread, I can recommend the work of Henry Sakaida and Koji Takaki in " Genda's Blade". It only concerns one sqdn, 343 Kokutai, but the attention to linking the individuals to each other in combat is excellent. Another factor, especially late in the war, was the poor quality (low octane) of Japanese fuel causing aborted intercepts due to engine problems and less than good runs in combat.

 

[fastmongrel]

3-1 is a pretty typical average

The Battle of Britain is one that certainly had about 3 to 1 overclaims. I think the Luftwaffe shot every Spitfire down at least 4 times and the RAF shot down every single aircraft the LW posessed.

 

[MIflyer]

The Dogfights series had one show where they had examples of bomber victories over fighters. This included the famous case of a B-17E on a recon mission in the Pacific, SBD's at Coral Sea, A-1's against Migs in Vietnam.

A Stan Stokes painting I love, "Tail end Charlie" depicts a combat between a B-24J and a FW-190. With the turbos off line, the B-24 "Hula Wahine" of the 446th BG, 706th Squadron had to drop down to low altitude to make it home. After they came out of low clouds over Belgium German fighters attacked and wounded three of the gunners. An Fw-190 chased the B-24, which almost blew the roof off a farmhouse. The tail guns were not working but the pilot managed to turn the bomber around and attack the Fw-190 head on, the nose turret shooting down the fighter.

And I read that the package guns on the B-26's in Europe did not get used very much. But one day the pilot of a B-26 on the outer edge of a formation saw a BF-109 go by after a firing pass and could not take it any longer.. He pulled out of formation, dove after the 109 and shot it down, then pulling back up to regain the formation. The only comment he got was "Nice shooting!"